Trochilus Tales

Saturday, July 11, 2015

The other day, Steve Malzberg interviewed long-time Clinton Attorney Lanny Davis on his show. And, as was pointed out on this post by Pam Key on Breitbart, Davis hung up on Steve and thereby left the show when Malsberg pressed him on key questions regarding Hillary's honesty during that CNN interview with Brianna Keilar.

Lanny Davis, like his client Hillary Clinton, is being fundamentally dishonest about that interview.

Hillary simply lied to the CNN reporter when she was asked about having received a subpoena, and about her deletion of her email files by wiping the server clean after having received subpoenas from what turns out now to have been two Congressional committees, each subpoena having addressed both her emails and the "private" server.

At a minimum, that should amount to a crime of tampering with evidence.

A close listen to a key portion of the actual CNN interview actually proves it.

For their part, CNN has since attempted to help cover up her out-and-out fabrication.

The network did so by doctoring the transcript of the interview in one key portion. But their video of their "transcript" posted on their website proves that they did so in a very clumsy way!

The transcript simply does not comport with the video. Here is the proof:

If you read the transcript of exchange, you will note that CNN actually doctored the key section regarding Brianna's question to Hillary, and Hillary's response, which appears to make the Q&A on that subject appear confusing to a reader.

But, if you follow the exchange in the actual video taping, there was no confusion at all about what Hillary was asked, how carefully she was paying attention, and how dishonestly she responded.

The crucial portion of Brianna's question to Hillary begins right at the 6:01 time stamp on the video. But I have included the entire prior question for context. Lack of "context" was the lame excuse Davis attempted to use on the Malsberg show, just prior to hanging up.

I've inserted (in bold) the key portion of that exchange, which clearly contains the specific language spoken by Keilar, and which CNN actually omitted from their "official" written transcript which makes their transcript so confusing. I've also included within a bracket [ ... ] an interjection made by Clinton that was entirely omitted from the transcript that posted by CNN. That omission too lends to the confusion over the exact exchange.

. . .
KEILAR: One of the issues that has eroded some trust that we've seen is the issue of your email practices while you were secretary of state. I think there's a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that.

Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?

CLINTON: Well, let's start from the beginning. Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one
device - maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

[CLINTON: Well, personal email.]

KEILAR: - while facing a subpoena deleted emails from them?

CLINTON: You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.

Now I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

And now I think it's kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.
. . . .

The whole phrase from Keilar's question -- "while facing a subpoena" -- is key to understanding that exchange in the interview.

Quite obviously, CNN deliberately omitted the short but telling antecedent "while facing a" just before the word "subpoena" from their "official" transcript.

Why did they do that? Because the inclusion would prove that Hillary was blatantly lying when she gave that answer!

And why would they have omitted the Clinton interjection, "Well, personal email." from her answer?

Because it makes it makes it very clear that she was actually paying very close attention as she was preparing to lie to the reporter by falsely claiming that she had never received a subpoena!

Let's face it. CNNhas always been in the political pocket of the Clinton crew, going all the way back to the Presidential Election of '92.

" ... It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?>"